Eliminating
Starvation / Feeding Humanity

Preferred State: Abundant supplies
of food for 100% of humanity

Problem State:16 million people
dying from starvation; 800 million malnourished

Strategy 1A: International Famine Relief Agency

To eliminate the ad hoc nature in which
famines are currently dealt with in the world  usually
a terminally late effort that begins well after the onset
of the now preventable disease  an International Famine
Relief Agency would be developed. Its function would be to
both amass a large grain reserve (not unlike in function to
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the United States) and
to use this food for emergency aid in times when global weather
patterns, political conflicts or other disruptions in food
supply cause the spectra of famine to rise in some part of
the world.

The Famine Relief Agency would be charged with
the responsibility and empowered to deal with famine in both
the curative and anticipatory mode. An annual budget of $2
billion would fund a Famine Early Warning System; purchase
of grain and other food reserves; and shipment, delivery and
distribution of food. The amount of food accumulated in reserve
would be a function of the severity and extent of famine in
the world at any given time. In years of plenty, the reserves
would be built up; in years of shortfall and famine, more
of the budget would be spent on distribution of food stocks.
Both activities-the purchase of grain in times of plenty and
the distribution in short-fall years-would act to stabilize
world grain prices.

Strategy 1B: Increased Fertilizer Availability

In much of the developing world where starvation
and malnutrition are prevalent, crop fertilizers are a luxury
that are used mostly on cash crops exported to the developed
world. Few farmers in the developing world can afford to use
petrochemical-based fertilizers on staple crops sold in the
village market because of the high expense and because the
prices of these fertilizers fluctuate along with oil prices.

However, through a program to provide farmers
in the developing world with simple implements and instruction
in their usage, indigenous nitrogen-rich organic material
can be used as a source of fertilizer for the neglected staple
crops that provide food for the world's poor.(31)
Research has shown that, depending upon the crop, yields can
be increased by between 40 and 100% over current levels on
farmlands not now receiving fertilizer.(32)
Most developing countries use an average of 52% of the fertilizer
that is used in developed countries, and their yields per
acre are only 74% of those in developed countries.(33)
In Africa, the situation is even worse. There, fertilizer
use is at 11 kilograms per hectare-compared to 700 kilograms
in parts of Europe.(34)
Given that this is only about 1.7% of the fertilizer application
rates in Europe, it is surprising that yields are 26% of what
they are in the US or Europe.(35)

Throughout developing nations, the addition of
fertilizer from relatively inexpensive local sources could
increase the production of foods for domestic consumption.(36)
The fertilizer response curve (i.e., application of fertilizer
to crops that have little or no fertilizer increases yields
at a much higher rate than applying additional fertilizer
to crops already having fertilizer(37))
makes it clear that application of fertilizer at a rate of
50% of that applied in the developed world would result in
food production increases of close to 25% and in some instances,
such as in Africa where the need is most severe, increases
as high as 100% are possible.(38)
All hunger-afflicted areas of the world are, at most, between
10 and 33% short in their production of the amount of food
that would be needed to make themselves self-sufficient in
basic food production.(39)

Additional local production does not guarantee
that everyone will receive the food needed to eliminate hunger
and malnourishment, but it is a necessary condition for insuring
long-term abundance. The addition of 25 to 50% more food in
food deficit areas will have a tremendous effect on the availability
of food in each food short country.

Strategy 1C: Sustainable Agriculture

Coupling increased fertilizer availability with
sustainable agricultural farming methods-such as nutrient
cycling, diverse production regimes, minimum tillage, companion-planting,
biological pest control, and soil and nutrient conservation-would
help guarantee both local abundance and future productivity.
In addition to increasing local food production and self-reliance,
soil erosion would be decreased, dependence on foreign imports
decreased, and resistance to drought and pests increased through
the use of locally available organic fertilizers and sustainable
agriculture techniques.(40)

The basic farm tools required to tap into local
nitrogen
sources can be manufactured domestically by any developing
country, adding to its industrial production and employment.(41)
In addition, the incomes of farmers would rise with their
higher productivity, even as their newly enriched croplands
become more resistant to soil erosion.

To implement this two-pronged effort in all the
food-short areas of the world would involve a very aggressive
program for teaching and demonstrating sustainable farming
methods to traditional small-scale farmers, coupled with financial
incentives and economic safety nets that strongly encourage
the switch. Given the costs of agriculture extension programs
in the US and elsewhere in the world, the size of the program
needed for food-short areas-including an order of magnitude
more on-farm extension workers, demonstration farms, education
materials, transportation vehicles, communication equipment,
tools and support facilities, along with the financial incentives
to encourage farmers to learn the new agriculture methods-would
cost about $17 billion per year for 10 years- $7 billion for
the fertilization program and the $10 billion for the education
program.

Costs/Benefits  How Much Is A Human Life
Worth?

The International Famine Relief Agency could be
funded with 32% of what just the US spends on candy each year.
The Increased Fertilizer Availability Program could be funded
with just 11% of what Europe, Japan and the US spend on cosmetics.
Together, all three programs-famine relief, fertilizer and
sustainable agriculture-total $19 billion per year for ten
years, which is 2.4% of the world's total annual military
expenditures or 1.9% of the world's annual expenditures on
illegal drugs.(42)
This amount is also about 55% of what the people of the US
spend on weight loss programs each year.(43)
The cost for eliminating starvation and malnutrition in the
world is also about 75% of what European governments spend
annually on subsidies to their farmers(44)or 38% of what Japanese farmers receive.(45)

The benefits of eliminating starvation, hunger
and malnutrition from the world far outweigh the costs. Well
nourished people are healthier and more productive members
of society. There are lower health-care costs and an economy
better able to meet the needs of its citizens. A society without
famine, hunger or malnourishment is more economically and
politically stable and secure. Ignoring moral imperatives
entirely and focusing on just economic factors makes this
even more clear. Currently, the US government, for its own
cost/benefit analysis for determining the cost to the tax
payer of different policy alternatives, has come up with a
range of values for the worth of a human life between $750,000
and $2.6 million.(46)
This is not as heartless as it may sound. It is the government's
sincere attempt to figure out the actual costs and benefits
of policy initiatives. For example, if a new federal safety
regulation costs $1 billion to implement and saves 100,000
lives, the overall economic benefit to society, if the value
of a human life is placed at $1 million, would be $99 billion;
if on the other hand the new regulation costs $10 billion
to implement and saves 10 lives, the loss would be over $9
billion.

Using a similar approach and valuation for a human
life, it becomes apparent that the world would benefit economically
by over $10 trillion per yearin just the number
of lives saved by implementing the International Famine Relief
Agency, Increased Fertilizer Availability Program, and Sustainable
Agriculture Program.(47)
Adding the reduced health-care costs and increased productivity
from a better-fed and healthier population would significantly
increase this already astronomical figure.

For the economist who would argue that the value
of a starving human in the developing world is somehow not
worth the same as that of a US citizen (perhaps because that
person would not earn as much in their lifetime as someone
in the US or some other exotic argument that attempts to mask
the demented racism of such a diminished valuation), it can
be pointed out that a valuation of one-half of the lowest
figure that the US government puts on the value of a human
life still results in a payback on investment in less than
25hours.(48)
Valuing the life saved at only $10,000 results in a net gain
of close to $100 billion and a payback on investment in 70
days.

*Sources:The What the World Wants Project
is by Medard Gabel and the research staff of the World Game
Institute. The material in this section of Media Hell is quoted
directly from that research. Credits, Major References & Footnotes >